The Source of the Trinity

Constantine the Sinner said:

You seem to be using nonexistence to mean dormancy. Very big difference. Puff the Magic Dragon is nonexistent, hibernating bears are dormant.

Daniel 12:2 is about the Resurrection of the Dead, not about souls existing prior to bodies.

Click to expand...

it is about the souls that sleep in the "dust of the earth" after all, and of course that they are dead compared to those that are living creatures - they don't even sense/feel they exist (maybe you know the sentence "i think, therefore i exist")

Blessings

Constantine the Sinner said:

Their souls were in Sheol (prior to Christ trampling down Sheol, referred to as "Hades" in the NT).

Click to expand...

even if some souls suffered in hell, but there has also been nothingness, a place where the souls are in a kind of state of deep sleep without dreams/visions

Blessings

Constantine the Sinner said:

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

Click to expand...

I don't see the Father alone as the source of the trinity, but as the primary authority of the trinity. Or maybe I am just misunderstanding what you mean by source, because it implies in my head as though He is what created the others, but I know that is completely wrong. Source as in sort of the power the others deride from for the use of the authority given to them? I don't quite get the question Are you saying they sort of siphon power off the Father to do Their works? I assumed all 3 were equal in everything, minus authority. Father to Son to Holy Spirit. Truly shows how mysterious the Trinity is.

Theology Proper is the biggest headache in the spectrum of Christian theology truth be told.

I was always under the understanding that the gospel of Jesus Christ was plain and simple and could be clearly understood by anyone. I do not know of any requirement that one be a theologian to obtain a fullness of salvation.

In studying the trinity view presented in the third century it does not appear that this was given by the revelations of God, but was determined by ones reasoning alone. My question is, how does this place the trinity theory on an equal plane with holy scripture? If it is viewed as scriptural doctrine, does not this constitute "adding to scripture"?

On my Beach Walk I caught this image, which spoke to me very much of the issues being discussed here, though on another level, so I though I would share it as a reflection/contribution to the discussion. The Trinity can never only be about the words.

Constantine the Sinner said:

Sheol and Gehenna are not synonymous.

Click to expand...

the letter is not enough for us the humans to understand what God means by the words that He spoke and wrote through His prophets in the form of scriptures, we can read the letters - to read is one of the easier things (even easiest in this modern world of highly developed education), but do we understand the biblical scriptures right (enough)?! - this is possible for us only if we first understand the truth of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, as well as of Their Saints/Prophet, because there is a "Word", which is not just a letter, but first of all something living and active that dwells in those who are faithful to His righteousness

did you mean there had been a "sheol" only prior to the first coming of the Lord, Jesus?!, the problem with such religious traditions is that there are some beliefs that have been wrong since they were so handed down for the first time, the same can be said about some beliefs about the so-called "sheol", one of them is that the "sheol" has been presented as something like a grave or hell where even righteous people go at least to sink into oblivion (which at least had somewhat been really so, at least prior to the death of the Lord, Jesus, on the cross), but remember cases such as that of Elijah the Prophet, He was not only resurrected but also taken up into heaven while still living in this world i.e. without passing through(experiencing) death, moreover he was seen how he ascended into heaven together with the "chariot and horses of fire", however, it is possible that there be still such a state of sleep for many souls as there had been such even for many saints prior to the death of Jesus on the cross (Matthew 27:50-53), why must we hypothesize trying to inculcate unproven/uncertain things in others as if they are proven/certain?!

it is written some souls will have abundant life for eternity of eternities, while others will suffer for eternity of eternities, and if the soul can either have abundant and everlasting life or suffer for eternity of eternities, then how is it possible that it not be indefinitely existing/present/available in the universe i.e. for the whole time's infinity?!, and if the souls are indefinitely existing/present/available in the universe, then how were they never in that place which we called "nothingness" when all humans that have ever been born/aborted in this world came gradually, one by one, in the course of many centuries?!, they must have been somewhere before they were born/aborted in this world...

Blessings

Paul Yohannan said:

Eh?

Click to expand...

what does the eh mean? do you believe God is the divine and eternal soul or not? souls and personality seem to be the same thing. humans are made in Gods image and the Son of God is fully human and so if you take away humanity from God you distort the image of God.

so it is easy to say something like "personality is a deeply fundamental part of reality". it is the modern atheistic world that believes that the most fundamental things of reality have nothing to do with humanity. but what hope do they have unless of their soul they pick him... maybe not in words or official doctrines but in the Life of his Spirit that he gives freely and according to their ability to receive. God gives to all because he is not lacking... though humans themselves might be in various types of stages.

Constantine the Sinner said:

I mean the Son and the Holy Spirit both depend on the Father to exist.

Click to expand...

well yes if he is not then how could the other two be if he is not? could the Father be a Father without his Son? no he very well could not and so God in action is a Trinity because the Trinity is the way God operates in himself. and we his creation are in him and founded on him, where else or how else could things be but by him? and of course God is always in rest and always moving. notice how the two angels in the vision of the temple in Isiah are worshiping, they hide themselves and they are flying round about and the Lord sits on his throne resting.

it seems that a common problem within religion in general is that people take some truth and know it and they cling to it in a manner that does not allow for further revelation. so when something else is revealed that is equally true it is rejected because the person already found out the first truth. another problem I saw in the church was that for centuries they had sects due to using different words/languages, they were arguing over words rather than truth because they themselves did not understand clearly or equally or in union enough. in the shepherd of hermas it said that the disciples heard one another. some times people ( myself included) have a hard time going out beyond themselves even though that is what we must do to be with God.

CF has shown me plainly throughout the years what the small mustard seed does but I really wonder if the church is supposed to be a bunch of mustard plants in the garden. thinking of the mustard seed taking over reminds me of the verse mentioning 'a garden of cucumbers'. a truly beautiful garden is so much more. the light shines through the crystal soul and it shows many colors and yet the Lord said in the gospel "The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied." . I wonder how many of us are arguing over words and yet don't really understand. dogmas are good and are marker points for true life in the Spirit but the Spirit is the life and the dogmas are just the secondary causes ( they are the tail, not the head). who can truly search the wisdom of God? paul was amazed and awed and if we are not then maybe we do not see what we think we see. sometimes that is true and sometimes it is not. to understand God through teachings is like being told what an apple taste like and how the texture is and ect... it is not quite the same thing as experiencing the apple.

so hopefully God is using the confusion and divisions in the sects of the church to make us zealous in drawing near to him, for certainly what man fails at God much more succeeds in.

"The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied."
the two swords were of course the Son and the Spirit. I am reminded of the vision Isiah had of the Trinity in the temple and of the ark with two golden angels crafted on it.

it seems that the human body is a good idea and a perfect picture of a community. carry on other parts of the body.

Noxot said:

what does the eh mean? do you believe God is the divine and eternal soul or not? souls and personality seem to be the same thing. humans are made in Gods image and the Son of God is fully human and so if you take away humanity from God you distort the image of God.

so it is easy to say something like "personality is a deeply fundamental part of reality". it is the modern atheistic world that believes that the most fundamental things of reality have nothing to do with humanity. but what hope do they have unless of their soul they pick him... maybe not in words or official doctrines but in the Life of his Spirit that he gives freely and according to their ability to receive. God gives to all because he is not lacking... though humans themselves might be in various types of stages.

Click to expand...

I believe God is divine, eternal, uncircumscribed, altogether beyond description, a "boundless sea of being," the "fullness of all qualities and perfections in their highest and infinite form", and that He consists of three persons, the relationship of which is clearly expressed by the Creed of 381 in its unaltered form (sans the filioque), and that one of the persons, the Word, became incarnate for our sakes and is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is fully and perfectly human and divine, taking his humanity from the Virgin Mary, who conceived by the Spirit; and that the distinct humanity and divinity of our Lord exist without admixture, confusion, separation, or division, the divinity of God being revealed through His assumed humanity, in short, what the creed of 381 says, (and what is more, I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which the Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic churches are three among several members, also including the Eastern Orthodox and other Oriental churches; I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come) and further, I believe and confess until the last breath that which we receive in the Eucharist is truly the blood and body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, given for the remission of sin and participation in life everlasting.

The Eh? was simply because I did not, and still do not, get your point; I am not sure whether or not what you are saying is compatible with the ancient faith or not; it sounds potentially accurate, but your use of novel terminology is unsettling.

However, I utterly reject your (as far as I can tell, unprecedented) exegesis of the two swords procured by the disciples as referring to the Son and Spirit; I also utterly reject the idea that the cherubim depicted on the ark represented the Son and Spirit in any respect, for neither the Son and Spirit are angels, nor are they attributes or posessions or God, but are full participants in the divine nature. Therefore it would not be proper to depict them as two angels in such a context.

If there is a mystagogical symbolism, it might refer to the humanity and divinity of our Lord and the human-divine synergy of Salvation, it might refer to the Church and Scripture, or to Scripture and Tradition, it might refer to the Body and Blood, it might refer to the power of the church to bind and loose, or to the laity and clergy of the church, or eternal salvation and damnation; or to any other binary pairing found in Scripture.

The two swords however it might be best to regard as literal, because St. Peter abused one to slice off the ear of a guard sent to arrest Jesus, an injury instantly and miraculously healed by our Lord, who it seems cannot tolerate the divine image being disfigured and would not suffer his over-zealois disciple's mutilation to remain unrepaired.

Noxot said:

well yes if he is not then how could the other two be if he is not? could the Father be a Father without his Son? no he very well could not and so God in action is a Trinity because the Trinity is the way God operates in himself. and we his creation are in him and founded on him, where else or how else could things be but by him? and of course God is always in rest and always moving. notice how the two angels in the vision of the temple in Isiah are worshiping, they hide themselves and they are flying round about and the Lord sits on his throne resting.

Click to expand...

What you describe here, aside from your over reliance on the angels, which requires emanation, angels not being proper typological representations of two of the Prosopa in isolation from the Father as a violation of the principal of coequality of the persons, could be understood from an Orthodox perspective as the immutable, transcendant and incomprehensible divine essence, and the visible, perceptible and immanent uncreated energies of God (see St. Gregory of Palamas). We know God through His energies necause His essence is unknowable.

symbols point to higher and higher realities since it is an ascending forever with God which is why scriptures have multiple layers of meaning to them. pseudo dionysius said that God is expressed with crude things as well as with what humans consider to be fine things. so on one level the vision talks about angels and on a higher it is expressing something of God. the Father is made known by the Son and the Spirit and without we would not know the Father which is why the two angels are on the outside of the ark. if you have a problem over what God told the jews to build to express divine truths then go to God about it. btw the gematria of the measurements of the ark adds up to 666 which expressed how if we measure God with our limited soul how we crucify the infinite truth that God is.

Constantine the Sinner said:

The Father's existence doesn't depend on the Son, even if the relation of Father does.

Click to expand...

I think part of the struggle here is the eternal question. How do we, bound in time, understand these things which find their origin before the beginning of time.

Constantine the Sinner said:

The Father's existence doesn't depend on the Son, even if the relation of Father does.

Click to expand...

if the Son has always been in the Father then how would you know that the Father does not need his Son in order for him to be what he is? it seems to me that in your view that the Son is something less than the Father?

John 16:15 (YLT)
`All things, as many as the Father hath, are mine; because of this I said, That of mine He will take, and will tell to you;

how do humans think that the Trinity can be the Trinity without all three?

Constantine the Sinner said:

The Father's existence doesn't depend on the Son, even if the relation of Father does.

Click to expand...

how can you compare the relationship of God being the Creator due to him making creatures with that of God being a Father because he begat a Son? orgien already foresaw such errors and so he affirmed that the Son of God is also the unbegotten Son of the Father because the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. God is God and there is no altering who and what he is when it comes to his divine necessity. the Son of God becoming a human being is part of the dynamic nature of God but the Son of God has always been fully human and fully God regardless of what occurs within creation.